chilone, I had no idea I would spawn this kind of heated discussion. But I admit I kind of rolled out that carpet. And I also admit that I'm all on JP and Thrillkilz side. I want anyone to ask themselves how much life the so called "soul" is prepared to take. How many eternites do you really need to make it right or meaningful? To me anything beyond a human life of existence would be absolute pain. Think of it, like in the way Dawkins expresses it. Life consists of several lives in a way, Early childhood, childhood, teenange, young life, middle aged life, elderhood. All phases in a way but also separate lives with the latter ones have perspective on the former. How can life be better by repeating it in different constellations than the ones that already exist?

I think that the religious heavens are exactly the same as the religious hells. Meaningless and utterly illogical.

We have lives that experience hell on earth but, but in their case death is absolutely better than more of it. I don't think we should reasonably, ethically or wishfully expect more life than we already have. We are just fine, if that is atheism, so be it. I am a little bit sorry that religions doesn't really meet the philosophical depth and pragmatic approach of a modern mind. The endgame of an eternal life really feels "old", at least to me.

Please keep the respect in the forum, all of you. I love TMDB, its our waterhole after IMDB's demise.

@Larswad said:

chilone, I had no idea I would spawn this kind of heated discussion. But I admit I kind of rolled out that carpet. And I also admit that I'm all on JP and Thrillkilz side. I want anyone to ask themselves how much life the so called "soul" is prepared to take. How many eternites do you really need to make it right or meaningful? To me anything beyond a human life of existence would be absolute pain. Think of it, like in the way Dawkins expresses it. Life consists of several lives in a way, Early childhood, childhood, teenange, young life, middle aged life, elderhood. All phases in a way but also separate lives with the latter ones have perspective on the former. How can life be better by repeating it in different constellations than the ones that already exist?

I think that the religious heavens are exactly the same as the religious hells. Meaningless and utterly illogical.

We have lives that experience hell on earth but, but in their case death is absolutely better than more of it. I don't think we should reasonably, ethically or wishfully expect more life than we already have. We are just fine, if that is atheism, so be it. I am a little bit sorry that religions doesn't really meet the philosophical depth and pragmatic approach of a modern mind. The endgame of an eternal life really feels "old", at least to me.

Please keep the respect in the forum, all of you. I love TMDB, its our waterhole after IMDB's demise.

I'm generally a very direct person so please take no offense. What I see is analysis by a very finite mind (which we all have). This "life", to me is just that and to project the definitions of it onto other potential "lives" doesn't make sense, especially in light of the probability/possibility that time/reality/etc. as we know it, are not nearly as simple or definable as what we perceive. Most "people of faith" believe that God exists outside of time (non believing scientists also think time is non-linear) so thinking that eternity would correlate or be constrained by time and the parameters of this life is rather myopic. What I feel God has in store for us is something very different than what we experience in the here and now and I don't feel that it would have anything to do with "repeating" anything we have experienced thus far.

Not to get too theological but in the Christian world, "hell" in a very simple sense, is complete and total separation from God (which is what unbelievers choose). The implications of this separation are incredibly profound. Assuming the Christian god is the real, true and living God who is the source of all that is good, the people who choose to reject Him, also reject that. Think about it. You say hell on earth? Even the worst possible things here don't totally and completely remove ALL that is good from our perception. Yes, terrible things happen that can be absolutely unbearable but we still perceive "good" even through all of that even if the "good" is the expectation of relief of pain and suffering. Would that relief be considered "good"? Yes, so if you are separated from all that is good relief wouldn't even be a hope. That's worst case. What about people who are in prison or violated or depressed, etc., etc., etc.? Probably what you would call hell on earth. Well, even they experience/perceive moments of good even if it's a sip of water of a soothing breeze on their face. Existence without ANYTHING good at all would make your "hell on earth" look like a vacation. Terrible torment? Yes but not God imposed. People CHOOSE to not believe and to be in charge of their lives and destinies. God allows that.

You have stated that your beliefs (faith) which are based on completely unproven ideas, somehow "meet the philosophical depth and pragmatic approach of a modern mind. " I don't even think I need to explain the SERIOUS problems your statement poses.